Ok, I am revising the legal perspective today.
On 10/20/15, 6:40 PM, "Upayavira" <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >As far as I'm concerned, you can still vote on the existing thread. >Please vote from a legal perspective rather than a technical one. > >The timeframe is set to ensure people have the ability to vote - it >isn't a requirement that it completes within a specific timeframe. > >thx. > >Upayavira > >On Mon, Oct 19, 2015, at 09:39 PM, Michael MacFadden wrote: >> All, >> >> I still find the Wave project quite interesting and am more than happy to >> help. I just haven’t really felt the pull of the community. If I >> thought there we something specific I could do to help I would be more >> than happy. I would like to see the release finally happen. Even if we >> eventually move away it would be nice to have completed this process once >> during the life of the project. >> >> If there is another vote I will participate. I will review the process >> and functional status and provide a vote. >> >> So you can count me in. >> >> ~Michael >> >> >> >> >> On 10/18/15, 4:56 AM, "Upayavira" <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >Non-binding votes have a different value. If we had insufficient >> >committer/PPMC votes but loads of quality (I.e not drive by) non-binding >> >votes, it would suggest we have a different problem, and could look how >> >to addresss that. >> > >> >Upayavira >> > >> >On Sat, Oct 17, 2015, at 09:33 PM, Zachary Yaro wrote: >> >> I would have cast a vote, but I read non-binding votes were discouraged. >> >> To clarify, what are the criteria for being able to cast a binding vote >> >> for >> >> this project? >> >> >> >> Zachary Yaro >> >> >> >> On 17 October 2015 at 21:48, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi all, >> >> > >> >> > Thanks to Yuri and Jeremy for downloading and trying out this RC. >> >> > >> >> > Well, I set a "deadline" around the 17th October which has now well >> >> > and truly passed. >> >> > >> >> > My vote on the matter was a +1 (though I realize that I failed to put >> >> > this in my original email, so you are allowed to ignore this for >> >> > failing to meet my own deadline). >> >> > >> >> > The result looks something like (including mine): >> >> > +1: 3 (2 binding) >> >> > +0: 0 >> >> > -0: 0 >> >> > -1: 0 >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately we have had insufficient votes to meet the release >> >> > requirement (minimum of 3 +1 binding votes, more + than -) [0]. >> >> > Binding votes as decided by people in [1]. >> >> > >> >> > @Yuri/Jeremy: How do you feel now about us moving away from Apache, as >> >> > this vote does seem to suggest that there is not enough interest from >> >> > the currently defined committers to maintain this project here. >> >> > >> >> > I am not really sure why none of the other committers responded at all >> >> > to the vote... >> >> > >> >> > Ali >> >> > >> >> > [0]: >> >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification >> >> > [1]: https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#wave >> >> > >> >> > On 14 October 2015 at 17:27, Jérémy Naegel <jeremy....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > +1 >> >> > > >> >> > > +Jérémy Naegel <http://google.com/+JérémyNaegel >> >> > <http://google.com/+J%C3%A9r%C3%A9myNaegel>> >> >> > > Public Information Officer >> >> > > >> >> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >> +1 >> >> > >> I did the following: >> >> > >> - Checked signatures >> >> > >> - Opened the binary and verified it works. >> >> > >> - Opened the source and verified that it can be built and works. >> >> > >> - Reviewed the changes for the rc 10. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Ali - Thanks for making this RC! >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > Hi all, >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > RC10 is now available for review. >> >> > >> > Artefacts can be found here: >> >> > >> > https://people.apache.org/~al/wave_rc/0.4-rc10/ >> >> > >> > (Remember checksums are from 'gpg --print-md SHA512 $f > $f.sha') >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > I have included both source and binary artefacts for convenience. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > The release version (if successful) will be 0.4.0-incubating >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > This is taken from the branch 0.4.0-rc10 of the incubator-wave >> >> > >> repository. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Notable changes since earlier initial release attempts include: >> >> > >> > - Use of typesafe config >> >> > >> > - Bumped versions of Jetty, GWT, etc. >> >> > >> > - Assorted tweaks to build system >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > A summary of useful information can be found in RELEASE-NOTES, and >> >> > >> > a >> >> > >> > list of changes in CHANGES in the source artefacts. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Action Required: >> >> > >> > Please go and test these packages (most importantly the source >> >> > >> > ones) >> >> > >> > for any outstanding legal problems, or any runtime problems in a >> >> > >> > 'standard' configuration. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > We are not looking for a perfect first release, as there is plenty >> >> > >> > of >> >> > >> > time to fix outstanding bugs in future releases, but we do want to >> >> > >> > get >> >> > >> > 0.4 out soon (at long last). >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > This vote will close around 0000 GMT 17th October 2015. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > [ ] +1 Release it! >> >> > >> > [ ] +0 Ok, but... >> >> > >> > [ ] -0 Ok, but you really should fix... >> >> > >> > [ ] -1 Definitely do not release this because... >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> > Ali >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >>
